Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Timing still suggest an A-400M to me, maybe the 'supplement' and eventual replacement of the C-130J's.

The Japanese C-2 could prove to be in the market in that time frame too. Certainly the Japanese opening up there products for export throws up some interesting kit.
$1-2bn would have only got us 3 C-17s so an aircraft the size of the A400 sounds about what we are looking for. Would get us 4-8 A400s with trg,basing and spare parts?

 

[John Newman]

Thanks John, conversion was probably the wrong way to put it, an added capability is probably better. Certainly the aircraft would maintain the full Tanker capability. I can't see how the equipment would effect its ability to operate as a VIP jet.

Mate, no problem about 'terminology', but it is better to be as clear as possible here, less confusion!

The Government has 'clearly' been talking about extra KC-30A capability (both with airframes 6 & 7 and now 8 & 9).

If on the other hand it had been saying an 'airframe that was common to the KC-30A' for VIP role, eg, A-330-200s, then possibly you could imagine that there would be one or two 'basic' A-330-200's being procured purely for the VIP role.

If that had been the case, then at least there was a 'common' airframe to support, just as I had said earlier for when the Challenger 604's are replaced, would seem appropriate to have the same 'common' G550 airframe for both VIP and 'special missions' roles.

 

[40 deg south]

When the Government ordered the 6th and 7th (ex Qantas birds) a little while back, there was talk then of at least one having a VIP interior fitted.

Thanks John, conversion was probably the wrong way to put it, an added capability is probably better. Certainly the aircraft would maintain the full Tanker capability. I can't see how the equipment would effect its ability to operate as a VIP jet.

David Cameron and senior ministers to get dedicated plane - Telegraph

Late in 2015 the UK media reported that either one or two (depending on which paper you believe) of their A330 'Voyager' tankers would fitted out for VIP transport duties, in addition to their refueling role.

No great surprise that Australia has gone down the same path.

 

[blueorchid]

Mate, no problem about 'terminology', but it is better to be as clear as possible here, less confusion!

The Government has 'clearly' been talking about extra KC-30A capability (both with airframes 6 & 7 and now 8 & 9).

If on the other hand it had been saying an 'airframe that was common to the KC-30A' for VIP role, eg, A-330-200s, then possibly you could imagine that there would be one or two 'basic' A-330-200's being procured purely for the VIP role.

If that had been the case, then at least there was a 'common' airframe to support, just as I had said earlier for when the Challenger 604's are replaced, would seem appropriate to have the same 'common' G550 airframe for both VIP and 'special missions' roles.

From the Jan/Feb issue of ADM.

New Tankers to have VIP interior

Points from the article :-

A delegation the RAAF has visited Spain to discuss the installation of VIP interiors.

The first aircraft to be converted to a tanker is already in Spain.

From the head of MRTT " We have signed a contract with Australia to do the MRTT tanker conversion and they are asking for VIP configurations"

While the tanker configuration aircraft is frozen..... The cabin configuration is not frozen at this point in time.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can people please check the layout of their posts before moving on....

"quotes" are a bit of a lottery in some cases and it means that Mods are following up and having to clean up the threads

doing one or two is ok, doing a bakers dozen across the forums in 12 hrs can challenge the disposition

 

[Nick underscore]

Many (if not all) boxes ticked for the RAAF in this release.

One thing that does puzzle me slightly and is moot question if the numbers are pared back at a later date. Why the odd numbers? x15 of P-8's and x5 of the SIGINT/ELINT G-550's (these I think are worth their weight in gold, once they become FOC).

If they move RAAF Darwin to a 'superbase', what locations are being discussed?

As I mentioned, just curiosity

 

[swerve]

Why not odd numbers? It's hardly unknown. The RAF bought five Sentinels, for example, & seven E-3.

 

[Nick underscore]

Why not odd numbers? It's hardly unknown. The RAF bought five Sentinels, for example, & seven E-3.

Agreed. Just a curiosity really. When looking at the G550 addition, x4 I would have thought provides the In-theatre, round the clock (plus redundancy) coverage. Much like the E2, within the CSG construct.

W.r.t the P-8, Im a little surprised at the almost like for like replacemnt numbers, when considering the current P-3 fleet. Overlap this with the x7 Triton and that's quite a capability.

 

[vonnoobie]

Agreed. Just a curiosity really. When looking at the G550 addition, x4 I would have thought provides the In-theatre, round the clock (plus redundancy) coverage. Much like the E2, within the CSG construct.

W.r.t the P-8, Im a little surprised at the almost like for like replacemnt numbers, when considering the current P-3 fleet. Overlap this with the x7 Triton and that's quite a capability.

I think from memory (Don't hold me to it as it sucks at times ) they found the Triton couldn't actually do all that they wanted, That combined with the ever growing submarines nuisance in the Pacific an Indians oceans along with everything in between and simply put numbers do have a part to play in it.

When you think about it the P-8 may be twice as good as the P-3, but if the submarine fleet in the area has grown 100 - 200% then you need to factor that in, A near 1 for 1 replacement plus the Triton's will allow us to keep same level of capability in relation to opposing fleet capabilities.

 

[John Newman]

W.r.t the P-8, Im a little surprised at the almost like for like replacemnt numbers, when considering the current P-3 fleet. Overlap this with the x7 Triton and that's quite a capability.

I remember a year ago or so, the Chief of the Air Force was talking about the mix of P-8A's and Triton, and at that time the proposal was as we know, 8 P-8A's and 7 Triton.

He was also talking about the number of P-8A's too, and saying that they were going to revise the numbers (hence the option of another 4) and said the appropriate size of the fleet should be 12 and said that the RAAF was planning to follow the 'ratio' that the USN was going to use, which is '2 to 1', which later got reported in some Defence media outlets as a reduction in Triton from 7 down to 6.

Roll forward to the DWP announcement and it's now 15 P-8A's and 7 Triton, pretty well spot on with the 2 to 1 ration that was being talked about (but with one extra P-8!!).

Pretty good result!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

One thing that does puzzle me slightly and is moot question if the numbers are pared back at a later date. Why the odd numbers? x15 of P-8's and x5 of the SIGINT/ELINT G-550's

P8's: I suspect that a few would be for woomera and edinburgh "work" and one is picking up an elint role

G-550's: Gets down to what the tasking will be - and I suspect that one frame will be doing double duty in woomer/edinburgh

If they move RAAF Darwin to a 'superbase', what locations are being discussed?

G550's are already discussed as edinburgh and williamtown
P8's will continue to task through extant AP3 C sites

 

[Nick underscore]

P8's: I suspect that a few would be for woomera and edinburgh "work" and one is picking up an elint role

G-550's: Gets down to what the tasking will be - and I suspect that one frame will be doing double duty in woomer/edinburgh

G550's are already discussed as edinburgh and williamtown
P8's will continue to task through extant AP3 C sites

Thank you. I forgot about the test aspect/ space

 

[meatshield]

With the retirement of the suphornet's at the end of the mid to late 2020's, would the b21 be in contention as a replacement? That is if the US was allowed them for export. They sure do tick a lot of boxes.....

 

[gf0012-aust]

With the retirement of the suphornet's at the end of the mid to late 2020's, would the b21 be in contention as a replacement? That is if the US was allowed them for export. They sure do tick a lot of boxes.....

Nope and nope

I can't see how it fits into future force constructs.

that kind of asset immediately triggers force imbalance and incoherence

 

[meatshield]

Sorry mate could you dumb that last line down a bit for me please

 

[John Newman]

With the retirement of the suphornet's at the end of the mid to late 2020's, would the b21 be in contention as a replacement? That is if the US was allowed them for export. They sure do tick a lot of boxes.....

Cough... Choke...Cough!

A fleet of B-21's (LRS-B's), at more than $500m per copy, thats US Dollars too, mmmm, don't think so!

I know we are pretty good friends with Uncle Sam, but asking for that sort of capability, well........

Seriously? A long range strategic strike bomber for the RAAF? Now that would certainly upset all the neighbours, start an arms race, people pointing all sorts of nasty long range weapons at each other, massively distort the current defence budget (unless we increased it to say 3% of GDP, etc, etc, not a good idea).

Getting back to the Shornets, the options are either the 4th squadron of F-35A's, or possibly the proposed USN 6th Gen fighter.

My money (at least at this stage) is on more F-35A's.


B-21? No!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry mate could you dumb that last line down a bit for me please

the trick for any small professional military is that you need to create a balnced and sympathetic force - especially when your focus is joint operations and interoperability

its a question of balance

if any major platform is out of balance in the overall force structure it will impact on how you plan and project that power - if its incorrectly weighted you end up with an imbalance in sustainment for the entire force.

its one of the reasons why nuke subs don't get a run in the RAN.

buy nukes and you'll cripple procurement opportunities for all 3 services.....

 

[vonnoobie]

Sorry mate could you dumb that last line down a bit for me please

Dumbed down.

The B21 and the Super Hornet are like chalk and cheese, apples and oranges. There is no relation into roles and capabilities between them meaning replacing the super hornet with the B21 messes with the force structure.

Any Superhornet replacement if any will be in the form of the F/A-XX program in cooperating with the USN or extra F-35's but that is about it.

 

[meatshield]

Ok thanks

 

[Redlands18]

With the retirement of the suphornet's at the end of the mid to late 2020's, would the b21 be in contention as a replacement? That is if the US was allowed them for export. They sure do tick a lot of boxes.....

Would they even pass FMS, Almost certainly would change the balance of power in the region.